1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32 | Continued from LIC9099...
C1 further reported that during the movie, C2 reached into their shirt and down their pants without their consent. C1 stated that they did not stop them due to difficulty asserting boundaries and saying no, but C1 informed their parents and Longspur house staff (S1) about the incident. C1 also reported that S1 from Longspur had left them unattended at the theater and had done so on previous occasions.
Based on records review, C1’s physician report dated 10/8/24 indicates that C1 does not have the capacity for self-care, including been supervised by staff at all times or direct family, which it was confirmed in C1’s admission agreement dated 9/20/21, where the facility agreed to 24-hour personal care, supervision and assistance as well as transportation to social activities. Furthermore, C1’s individual program plan dated 9/18/24 determines that the facility will be always providing supervision to ensure the resident’s safety and well-being.
LPAs obtained written communication from meeting conducted on 8/19/25 at approximately 4:20pm with C1, S1, placement agency service coordinator and C1’s responsible party, where it was discussed that S1 accompanied C1 to the movies following their one on one (1:1) care plan, movie ticket was provided. Per incident report, C1 requested privacy during the outing, S1 remained within proximity, both clients went to use the restroom twice during the movie and S1 remained at their seat located three rows behind them where there was no direct supervision provided to C1. In the meeting there were agreements made to ensure the future safety of C1. Based on interviews conducted with C1, it revealed that S1 was not present to assist them when needed. Interviews conducted with S1 revealed that S1 was present during the outing, but did not accompany C1 on both occasions when both clients went to use the restroom because S1 did not see C2 going to the restroom and C1 appeared to enjoy the date and there were no signs of distress or fear. According to interviews conducted with C1’s responsible party confirmed the above information.
The preponderance of evidence standard has been met; therefore, the above allegation is found to be SUBSTANTIATED. California Code of Regulations, (Title 22, Division 6, Chapter 8), is cited on the attached LIC 9099D.
Appeal Rights Given.
|